Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.G. Agarwal, J.
Ratneswar Singh – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 586 of 1997
Decided On: 01.03.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:P.J. Saikia, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:N. Mohammed, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of considering the seriousness of the offense and avoiding undue sympathy in sentencing for cases involving reckless driving and causing death.
Headnote:
Driving - Criminal Conviction - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for driving a bus recklessly and causing the death of a school-going boy. The accused was convicted under Section 279 and Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a bus driver, was tried for causing the death of a school-going boy by driving recklessly and knocking him down with the bus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 279 and Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence based on legal precedents.
Issues: The issues involved the recklessness of the accused while driving, the direct cause of the boy's death, and the application of legal precedents for sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the direct testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered legal precedents to enhance the sentence based on the seriousness of the offense.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction was upheld, and the sentence was enhanced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with the sentences to run concurrently.
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard learned P.P.
2. The Petitioner before us is a driver of a bus and he was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in GR Case No. 834 of 92 on the charge that on 8.6.1992, the Petitioner drove a bus bearing registration No. AMB 2487 in the National High Way No. 37 and knocked down a school going boy Shankar Barhoi aged about 7 years, as a result of which, the said boy died at the spot.
3. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. N. Sonowal who found as follows:
Injuries-Crushed lacerated wound 32 x 12 cm size from the left knee to ankle. Skin muscles vessels nerves and libia fibula are crushed. Closed fracture of the right femur at the level of lower one-third. Left ankle joint is fractured and dislocated.
Cranium and Spinal Canal.-Scalp, skull vertebrae, membrane are healthy. Brain was pale. Spinal cord was healthy.
Thorax-Thorasic walls, ribs, cartilages, pleurae, larynx are healthy. Both lungs are pale. Pericuardium was healthy. Both verticles of the heart is empty. Left leg vessels are crushed.
4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of crushed injuries sustained from running over by motor vehicle.
5. There is oral as well as medical evidence on record as regards the death of the deceased as a result of vehicle accident and medical evidence has not been challenged.
6. As regards the incident, there are two eye-witnesses, namely Lakhmiram Barhoi (P.W.2) and Tulsiram Barhoi (P.W.6). They have deposed that on the relevant day at about 12.30 p.m. the accused drove a bus at a high speed and knocked down the deceased who came out from school and who was on the side of National Highway.
7. In this case, the death of the deceased by a vehicular accident, at the relevant time, has not been disputed, on the contrary, the accused in his statement has admitted the driving of the vehicle. So far P.W.6 is concerned there was no cross-examination and his evidence has not been challenged at all. So far P.W.2 is concerned, there is no meaningful cross-examination and the evidence remain intact. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the application of the maxim "res ipse loquitar" by the trial Court and submits that in a criminal trial, the above principle cannot be applied. In view of the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses, we find that the application of the said maxim is no way relevant as there is eye-witnesses who have deposed about driving of the vehicle rashly and there is no dispute that the running over by the bus was the direct cause for death of the deceased. The accused had been convicted under Section 279, IPC as well as under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, further imprisonment for one month, by the trial Court.
8. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29(A) of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia who affirmed the order of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
9. In view of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused under Section 279/304 (A), IPC. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the accused person is now about 50 years old and as such the sentence may be set aside and fine may be enhanced. The learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Prakash Agarwal v. State of M.P. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 764.
10. We have perused the above decision and we find that the accused was granted relief in that particular case in view of the fact that long 18 years have passed in disposing of the case. The law regarding substitution of sentence for offence under Section 304A, IPC did not find favour with the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna, AIR 1987 SC 861, the Apex Court held:
Consideration of undue sympathy in suc
